Let the Smear Campaign Begin

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported yesterday that gubernatorial candidate Mark Neumann took a swipe at his opponent Scott Walker for excessive spending.  Neumann stood outside Walker's office at the County Building on Wednesday morning "armed with charts and graphs" stating that Walker's budgets for the past 8 years increased spending by 35%.  He said this surpassed Doyle's spending increases for the same period, which was only 27%.

Scott Walker said that Neumann failed to remove the "capital budget spending from the operating budget," and that Neumann was rearranging facts first gathered by a liberal advocacy organization called One Wisconsin Now.

The connection between Mark Neumann and One Wisconsin is not a cheap shot by Walker's campaign, but is a matter of fact.  Neumann extracted the same talking-points from One Wisconsin Now's website, the same points I refuted last October.  Neumann put them out in a snappy press release, and shortly after claimed to be the "real fiscal conservative" in the gubernatorial race.  So much for Neumann not going negative, right?

Neumann Deliberately Left Out Pertinent Facts

I want to address a few things since there appears to be a lot of confusion about Neumann's criticism of Walker.

First, in terms of sheer mathematical calculation, Neumann's numbers are correct.  But he leaves out very important context, and in politics, context is everything.  Here is the context numerated by points.

In an effort to jump start a sluggish economy, Walker took out a loan with the federal government through the "Build America Bond" program that condensed three years worth of construction work in a 16 month window.  This means that three years worth of spending was allocated to the 2010 capital budget, rather than spreading it out year by year in each capital budget.  In order to increase spending without actually increasing spending, Walker required a freeze on capital spending for the 2011 and 2012 capital budgets.

This is no different than somoneone spending a month's worth of grocery money in a single day rather than waiting to spend it incrementally each week at the store.  At the end of the month, the total money spent on groceries is the same.  Neumann's calculation spans the period 2003-2010 knowing that Walker rolled up three years of spending starting in 2010.  This is like Neumann checking your wallet a day after you spent the grocery money and then criticizing you for spending 4 times the amount you would have spent if you shopped each of the four weeks.

If Neumann were honest, he would have removed the capital budget completely since it's a separate matter from the operations budget, or he would have extended his calculations to the year 2012 to reflect a proper spending increase.  But the fact it took me this long to explain why context matters, means that any campaign would have a difficult time proving Neumann wrong in a simple press release.  Neumann knows this, and that is why he knew his criticism would stick.

If we're going to judge one's fiscal conservatism based strictly upon "proposed budgets", then Walker would be the fiscal conservative of the year since each budget cycle he proposes a 0% property tax levy increase, privatizes jobs in various county departments, and runs a budget surplus each year.  This year's budget surplus for Milwaukee County was nearly 10 million. 

And third, Walker tapped the Build America Bonds program that offered Milwaukee County a one-time low interest rate for municipalities.  It was a fiscally clever idea that will save the county $3 million in the long-run.

Conclusion

We have two fiscally conservative candidates running for governor.  It is expected that they will attack each other during the primaries, presumably based upon past records.  However, Neumann never had an executive experience negotiating a budget with a partisan board.  Neumann's budgetary experience in the U.S. Legislature consisted of signing his name to bills spearheaded by the more senior members of Congress.  In fact, Neumann missed the most important budgetary vote of his career so he could go hunting with his 13 year-old son in northern Wisconsin.  Perhaps Neumann should walk a bit more softly on Walker's budgeting before we start exploring why his hunting expedition took precedent over the most important budgetary vote since 1933.

A Short-Term Gain for a Long-Term Stain

In recent months, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has been the primary focus of Hispanic ire.   But before Brewer signed Arizona's controversial immigration bill, her popularity among likely voters in her own party was waning as well.       

In mid April, Brewer had a mere 26% approval rating among likely GOP voters.  This was attributed to the fact that she advocated a state sales tax increase, a position that didn't sit too well with those in her own party.  But after Brewer signed Arizona's immigration bill (SB1070), her approval ratings went through the roof and have remained there ever since.

On CNN, Governor Brewer met with Anchor John King to discuss Arizona's law and the possible fallout that may occur with the Hispanic community.  King asked Governor Brewer the following question:

"You're right, the majority of the people in your state, the majority of the people nationally said they support this new law, but if you look at polling, the standing of Republicans among young Latino voters, and that population is growing dramatically especially in your state; we asked in the MBC/Wall Street Journal poll, 'who do you want to control Congress after the election?'

Democrats have a 35 point advantage over Republicans among Latino voters. Other numbers have shown the Republican Party suffering among them. Do you worry about that as a Republican politician, that in the short term this might help you, but that your party is digging a ditch?"

Governor Brewer responded that she wanted Latinos to know that Republicans embrace them and their ways.  However, the reality is that Arizona's actions in the past month cast real doubt on the sincerity of the GOP embrace.

On April 24th, Jan Brewer signed an immigration law that makes illegal immigration a state crime.  This caused a crazy controversy in the Hispanic community for weeks.  And before the dust could settle, Brewer was at work signing a bill that prohibits the teaching of ethnicity classes that aren't open to students of all races.  As an aside, opening ethnic classes to all races became a serious issue for Republicans ever since Dolores Huerta, a Hispanic civil rights teacher, told Hispanic students that "Republicans hate Latinos".

And not to be outdone by the Governor Brewer, the Arizona Department of Education recently told school districts that teachers who spoke English ungrammatically or with heavy accents would be removed from their classes until they could demonstrate proficiency.  As expected, this didn't go over so well either.

While in their own right, each of these issues could be legitimately argued by reasonable people, the idea to propose all of them within a two-month window leaves the eerie impression that the Hispanic community has a big target on their back.  If this is what Governor Brewer means by the warm GOP embrace, I would hate to see their cold shoulder. 

Hispanic Growth Rate in the U.S. is Off the Charts

During the 2008 presidential election, 57% of Hispanic voters registered as Democrats while only 23% registered as Republicans.  Doing the math, if twice as many Latinos are registered as Democrats than Republicans, then it stands to reason the greater the increase in the Hispanics population, the greater the increase in the Democrat party.  Well, this is exactly what's happening.

Between 2000 and 2006, Hispanics accounted for half of the nation's overall growth, and it tripled the rate of the U.S. population as a whole.  Based upon current trends, U.S. Census Bureau has also estimated that Hispanics will make up nearly 20% of the entire U.S. population by 2020.  This is a serious problem for the GOP unless they can learn how to reach out to the Hispanic community in a more sensible way.

The Political Vulnerability of Texas, for Example

Texas has been a red state since the late 70s.  Republicans have relied on the Lone Star State to provide them a weighty 34 electoral votes (triple the amount of Wisconsin) during recent presidential elections. But as the demographics in Texas begin to change, the Lone Star State may no longer be a guarantee for the GOP.

In Texas, Latinos make up 36% of the population. The Census Bureau predicts that by 2020, Hispanics will become the majority population in Texas.  Couple this with the fact that in the 2008 election, all of the counties in Texas with a Hispanic population density above 70% went to Barack Obama (with the single exception of Hudspeth County), and we seem to have a problem. As the Hispanic population in Texas continues to grow, it will eventually become a blue state.   

Immigration Rhetoric Seems to be the GOP's Achilles Heal

If the GOP fails in their fight for the soul of the Hispanic community, it will be one of the biggest political blunders in American politics.  As Governor Brewer touched upon earlier, the philosophy of the Hispanic community is centered around Roman Catholicism, conservative social values, and a devotion to a traditional family structure.  The soul of our community already lies in the bed of conservatism, but Democrats have been more successful at selling the idea that the GOP is a party more interested in wealthy white men than poor minorities.  And sad to say, the rhetoric surrounding the immigration debate only reinforces this viewpoint.

Most people agree, with the exception of perhaps Christina Neumann-Ortiz, that we need to secure our borders.  As someone wisely said, "A nation without borders is like a house without walls."  And just as you protect your home with durable doors and powerful padlocks, we need to protect our country with effective borders.  The point is, if immigrants can slip through a porous border by the millions, then so can terrorist networks like Al Qaeda or the Taliban.  This presents a serious systemic risk to our national security. 

A more divisive issue, of course, is what to do with illegal immigrants that are already here contributing to the agricultural and dairy sectors of the U.S. economy?  Since many of them have entered the country illegally to join families who are established as legal residents, there is a component of human compassion that shouldn't be overlooked when considering viable solutions.

At this juncture is where the GOP starts nipping at the hand that feeds.  The more conservative voices of the GOP loudly oppose amnesty, but they often misappropriate the term when criticizing legislative proposals.   Amnesty is a blanket-pardon free from all penalties or retribution, but Republicans have used it to apply to anything involving a pathway to citizenship.  For instance, legislative attempts like the "Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007" put conditions on a pathways to citizenship like learning English, having no criminal history, paying back taxes, and paying a $2,000 fine.  But according to the hard right, this proposal was dubbed as amnesty even though it clearly contained punitive components.

Conclusion

It is my fear that by the time the GOP finally understands that short-term gains of inciting their base are not worth the long-term setbacks of making the Hispanic community a permanent foe, it might be too late.  The GOP has an excellent opportunity to reach out to the Hispanic community even as we speak.  In the state of New Mexico, the Republican nominees for governor and lieutenant governor, Susana Martinez and John Sanchez respectively, are both Hispanic.  The fact they've survived the primary election on a GOP ticket speaks volumes about the conservative voters in New Mexico.  And if this Latino duo beats their Democrat opponents, they can demonstrate loudly that the GOP's tent is large enough to house the Hispanic community.  But until then, the GOP shouldn't bite the Hispanic hand that will feed it for generations to come.   

Calderon Visits U.S. to Protect Mexico's Interests

Recently, Mexican President Felipe Calderon visited the United States in an effort to strengthen foreign relations between the two neighboring countries.  Usually, diplomatic trips are given a brief obligatory blip in the local papers, but President Calderon became a headline when he decried Arizona's new immigration law before the U.S. Congress.  It's a headline for multiple reasons, but the principal purpose is that foreign dignitaries seldom rebuke domestic policy on U.S. soil.  His timing appeared opportune, and it underscored the reason why he visited the United States. 

To say that times are tough in the U.S. is an understatement, but it isn't much different in Mexico either.  Last year, Mexico's GDP fell by 6.5%, which is comparable to the 6.1% drop experienced in the United States.  All of Mexico's revenue streams are trending downward including their remittances.

A remittance is a money transfer from a foreigner to his native homeland.  In 2008, Mexican immigrants living in the U.S. sent $25.3 billion back to their homeland, roughly equalling 3% of Mexico's GDP.  Remittances from immigrants living in the U.S. have become Mexico's largest source of revenue second only to their oil industry.

President Calderon's visit to the U.S. shortly after Arizona passed their immigration law was not a mere coincidence, but an effort to protect Mexico's vital economic interests.  If Arizona's immigration law were aggressively implemented, it is logical to conclude that the corresponding decrease in illegal immigrants would reduce remittances to Mexico as well.  This would be detrimental to Mexico's economy. 

Calderon Stunningly Rebukes Arizona When Mexico's Immigration Policy is Far Worse

President Calderon condemned Arizona's law as "criminalizing migration" and treating "people that work and provide things to this nation" as criminals.  He also said that Arizona "introduces a terrible idea using racial profiling as the basis for law enforcement."  This is an odd analysis coming from a president who's own immigration policy "criminalizes migration" and uses racial profiling as "the basis of their law enforcement".  Let's go over some of Mexico's immigration policy and see how it compares to Arizona's new law.

First, illegal immigration in Arizona is considered a misdemeanor punishable by a fine and a day in court.  In Mexico, illegal immigration is deemed a felony that carries a penalty up to 10 years in prison for a repeated offence.  In terms of punishment, Mexico's law is more severe.   

Second, illegal immigrants in Arizona have a right to "due process", which means they are provided with free representation in court by an attorney.  In Mexico, illegal immigrants are thrown into unsanitary detention facilities and access to justice is denied unless they can prove their legal status.  If they cannot, they are rounded up en masse and deported to places like Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, and Nicaragua.  There are no sanctuary cities in Mexico, and they do not release you back into the general population to await another court date.

According the Mexican National Human Rights Commission, nearly 10,000 immigrants in Mexico were abducted and held for ransom in 2009 alone.  Also, a stunning 60% of female migrants experienced some sort of sexual violence.

Amnesty International has called Mexico's immigration policy "a major human rights crisis leaving them with virtually no access to justice, fearing reprisals and deportation if they complain about abuses".  Rupert Knox, Amnesty's researcher in Mexico, said that Mexico's failure to tackle abuses against migrants makes travelling through Mexico one the most dangerous [trips] in the world.

Third, illegal immigrants in Arizona have access to free Emergency Rooms, Ob Gyn centers, food stamps, legal representation, subsidized housing, and education up to the 12th grade.  In Mexico, migrants have to show immigration papers to receive any public education or health care services.  And unlike Wisconsin, illegals in Mexico don't get in-state tuition reimbursement for college.

Fourth, in Mexico, citizens must be able to show identification for proof of citizenship.  This is the same component of the Arizona law that President Calderon publicly condemned as racial profiling.  But in Mexico, authorities frequently ask "gueros" for identification.  They also require bank statements to show that immigrants can sustain themselves economically.  For emphasis, let us repeat that Mexican officers routinely target gueros or miclos (light-skinned Mexicans) when determining one's immigration status.  In Arizona, a law must be broken or prevention measures must be taken before the police can build a case based upon articulable evidence to warrant checking one's immigration status.  Yes, it's a mouthful, but a law must be broken first before a cop can build a reasonable suspicion, not the other way around. 

Calderon Interfered in U.S. Domestic Policy to Protect Cash Flow into Mexico

It's reasonable to presume that President Calderon didn't come to the United States to fight for the human rights of Mexican immigrants fleeing from the homeland.  It is more likely that Calderon stood up to Arizona to secure an interest vital to Mexico, otherwise called remittances.      

Right now, Arizona is the only state that has made it a state crime to live in the country illegally.  This will cause a problem for Mexico if it reduces the total amount of illegal immigrants in the United States.  Now imagine if Texas, New Mexico, and California joined Arizona in enforcing federal law.  This would be tantamount to Calderon's worst economic nightmare.  It would essentially freeze the revenue spigot that flows into Mexico.

No, . . . President Calderon didn't come here to fight for human rights.  My bet is that he doesn't care any more about Mexican immigrants in the U.S. than he does about Cuban immigrants in Mexico.  Instead, he came to protect the $25 billion a year that flows into Mexico, most of which will never return to the U.S. economy.